Aldo, we can see salmons in any grocery store, we don't need to go to the
park.

-----Original Message-----
From: Aldo Solari [APS] [mailto:aldo.solari@ho*.se*]
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 6:10 PM
To: Michael Barnette; techdiver@aquanaut.com
Subject: Re: UNESCO


You miss the main point: many of the "technical divers" are wreck
gutters  and cultural heritage killers. You see it in this forum:
some  operators  make  PR  for  their  diving  trips  showing the
pictures  of  themselves  (or  their customers) with the material
they  "salvage" or the animals they've killed. A truly disgusting
practice carried out by ignorant people who dont see beyond their
noses.

Diving  became to be regulated in many places because of the many
abuses:  the  "take  a  piece home" philosophy many of you either
practice/d  or  allowed  others  to  practice (divers, operators,
etc.)  is  leading  to the limitation of basic freedoms for civil
citizens.

Destruction  of  cultural  heritage  is a kind of terrorism which
denies  the knowledge of history and the identity to many people.

I  hope  UNESCO  succeeds  in its cooperation with governments to
regulate access to both natural and cultural heritage worldwide.

You  can  still  go  to  your  US  Parks  and see bears, salmons,
millenium  trees, fossils, etc. BECAUSE the US Gov had the vision
to  create the park service in the late 1800: they saved the good
for the future.

Cheers,

----
aldo.solari@ho*.se* (fisheries biologist)
Home page, www.ccbb.ulpgc.es/fish-ecology/solaris
----

aocfishman@ho*.co*

MB> The  following  is  a  reply  I  made  to an archaeologist on
MB> another  list-serv  who  apparently  does  not understand why
MB> divers  may be opposed to the UNESCO Convention on Underwater
MB> Cultural Heritage (UCH). For those of you unfamiliar with the
MB> UNESCO Convention on UCH, I strongly suggest you read it. You
MB> can find the .pdf file at:

MB> http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001232/123278e.pdf

MB> As  you will see, it may have very important repercussions on
MB> technical  diving. To date, I have not been worried about the
MB> government  regulating  technical diving activities. However,
MB> upon reading this Convention and noticing an innocent looking
MB> rule,  I  saw  a  potential  open  door  for regulation. This
MB> troubles me greatly.

MB> Anyway, here is the reply which helps to describe the potential
problems...

>>So please tell me, what's the big problem?

MB> I have read the document and, since you asked, here is a list of what
MB> troubles me:

MB> Rule 28.  HUGE issue here that I felt needed to be mentioned first (from
my
MB> perspective).  Since they included safety as an issue, this alone could
MB> preclude my diving activities that include mixed gasses and inwater
MB> decompression to depths easily exceeding 200fsw.  This really opens the
door
MB> for increased regulation in technical diving by those that have no
MB> background or clue to those activities.  They may simply prevent it "for
the
MB> sake of safety."  That is not acceptable.


MB> Article 2, Item 5.  As stated earlier "in situ" preservation is not an
MB> effective management measure if, as stated in Item 3, your objectives
are to
MB> conserve UCH for the "benefit of humanity."

MB> Article 2, Item 10.  You are correct there is a provision to encourage
MB> non-intrusive access, however the final words are what is troubling.
Who
MB> decides when non-intrusive access becomes incompatible with UCH
protection
MB> and management?  Call me a pessimist, but I have a feeling that in some

MB> (many) instances, prohibiting all access may be easier for managers than
MB> having to monitor diving activity.  This has already happened in
National
MB> Parks and elsewhere.  *THAT* is what troubles me and fellow divers.

MB> Article 5.  Potential repercussions from fishermen.  Do they even know
about
MB> this document???  I have witnessed how the prohibition of one group
(e.g.,
MB> fishermen, due to incidental damage to UCH) will impact other activities
due
MB> to political pressure and perceived equity issues amongst user groups.
When
MB> fishermen were recently prohibited from a marine protected area, they
saw
MB> that their inclusion was not possible so they went after divers.  Even
MB> though the impacts of non-consumptive divers were negligible, they were
MB> prohibited to appease the other user groups.  So, while there are
statements
MB> that encourages access on UCH (Article 2, item 10), the document also
leaves
MB> an "escape clause" that can be utilized by other user groups that can
easily
MB> prevent access.

MB> Article 9, Item 1.  I enjoy researching, diving, and documenting new
MB> shipwrecks as I see fit.  I don't want to have to be faced with red tape
and
MB> bureacracy.

MB> Article 10, Items 2, 3, 4.  I question who will be making these
decisions
MB> and their rationale.

MB> Article 11, Item 1.  Same as Article 9, Item 1.

MB> Article 12, Item 1.  My diving activities are exclusively (with minor
MB> exceptions) directed at deepwater wreck sites from 200-400+fsw.  Many
times
MB> we have no idea what we are diving on and will be the first to document
the
MB> site.  It is possible that these activities may be preceived to run
counter
MB> to this Convention and, at best, I may get static and be hassled, and at
MB> worst, my diving activities may be prohibited.

MB> Article 18, Item 1.  The artifact police.  This item does not indicate
MB> whether or not the artifacts collected before the implementation of thic
MB> Convention is included.  I do not like the potential open-endedness of
this
MB> Item.

MB> Article 18, Item 4.  It is hard enough to get access to view and
photograph
MB> artifacts (you know, for the "public benefit") recovered by
archaelogists
MB> (in some instances).  This reminds me of the last scene from "Raiders of
the
MB> Lost Ark"

MB> Annex

MB> Rule 1.  See above.
MB> Rule 6.
MB> Rule 7.  See above.
MB> Rules 9-13.
MB> Rules 22-23.

MB> In short order, I plan to have a link on the main page of the AUE
website
MB> with e-mail addresses so that you can contact those (U.S.
representatives)
MB> involved with the UNESCO Convention to urge them not to ratify this
treaty.
MB> Please check the AUE website Monday morning.

MB> Regards,
MB> Mike

MB> Michael C. Barnette
MB> Association of Underwater Explorers
MB> Because it's there...somewhere...maybe.
MB> http://www.mikey.net/aue




MB> _________________________________________________________________
MB> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

MB> --
MB> Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
MB> Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.


--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.


--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.

Navigate by Author: [Previous] [Next] [Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject: [Previous] [Next] [Subject Search Index]

[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]

[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]